Anyone who attributes any sort of inferiority to a racial group because they happen to be in that racial group (and races are never biological) is a racist.
...that's what racism is. By definition.
That's a thought crime. A thought crime is fictional, it exists only in the subjunctive mood since to demonstrate that natural law suggests anything like thought crime, is to at once demonstrate that you do not understand natural law theory, and, not or, but and, that you also misunderstand the moods of sentences, in order for you to demonstrate a thought crime, is to "bridge the is-ought gap", only by assuming the antecedent, which is the same as assuming the consequent or conclusion, assuming good logic otherwise. That's just a fallacy, which means thought crimes are fictional. This is regarding of course metaphysical reality, since no crimes can really be objectively isolated and identified, apart from describing crimes in words.
Prove that you don't believe in thought crimes.
More below.
That would just be a racist who doesn't act on his racism.
Typical thought crime apologist---no thanks, we're not buying. There are no thought crimes, and I know that we can agree that there never ought be thought police. I'm being generous here, I'm genuinely giving you the benefit of the doubt, I believe that you too agree that thought police ought never be real. I'm not arguing that because we never want thought police, that thought crimes aren't real crimes like murder and rape are real crimes. Thought crimes are fake, made up, fictional, and if they are real and I am wrong, then the worst case is that they are real crimes but that they are all light crimes, lightweight crimes, and shouldn't be seriously punished, not like kidnapping or bearing false witness under oath against an innocent person. The latter two are serious crimes, and that means the punishments are more serious. I contend that thought crimes are just fake, not real crimes, but I will concede if it gets us to agree quicker, that they are real crimes but that they are all lightweight crimes.
Yep. Racism is independent of power. You can be a racist without acting on it.
Fake. No you can't. "Not acting on" racism is, not being racist. They are equivalent. It doesn't matter what kind of warm feeling you get in your heart when you think of Blacks, the only thing that matters is if you are in any way condemning, denying, delaying, ignoring, disregarding, breaking, invading, infringing, abridging, damaging, harming, censoring, disabling, corroding or eroding, offending, divesting, suspending, trampling, transgressing, wounding, trespassing against or otherwise treating them with contempt, the natural, fundamental, inborn, God given, inalienable or unalienable, intrinsic, inherent, basic, indivisible, indefeasible, absolute, primitive, primordial, pre-political, pre-existing, native, inviolable, sacred, universal human rights, entitlements, permissions, authorizations, liberties, freedoms, or inheritance, of Blacks, without justification.
If you are guilty of this for anybody else or of any other identity group, then you are what a racist is but with a different prejudice. You are equal with a racist, if you for example fail to preserve, protect, secure, well defend, recognize, acknowledge, affirm, guarantee and confess the rights of women, or of billionaires, or of Catholics, you're equal to racists, just with a different prejudice.
Yep. It's commendable that a racist might be cautious enough or ethical enough to not act on his racism. That doesn't mean he isn't a racist.
You're just begging the question by calling him a racist, without him "acting on his racism". Without "acting on 'his racism'", he's not a racist.
He's not a racist.
When he used troops and gas to disperse perfectly legal demonstrations near a church, so he could get a photo op waving a Bible, that was a violation.
When he ordered children tossed into cages, without blankets, soap or other necessities, that was a violation, and a court so ruled.
Like all narcissists, he's filled with hatred for anyone he perceives as being in his way.
The court so ordered. Reality counts. And he openly admitted hating people he perceived to be thwarting his efforts.
He carelessly blurted out the truth. He doesn't do that a lot, but he did this time.
You never know when he's doing that. It'd be so much easier to debunk him if he never told the truth but he mixes it in just enough so that he can't be cancelled or modeled. And it's delightful when an otherwise transparently biased newsman has to admit when the president does utter a salient and timely fact amidst the din of bombast.
Nope, and you should be ashamed of yourself for saying so.
Read your own quotes from your own source. He specifically mentioned murderers as those whose heads should accidentally get bumped on the way into the cruiser. And you're defending them.
So is Trump. As the court ruled. And yes, he will get due process, when he leaves office.
Bluster.
Whereas Trump paid his girlfriend to kill their unborn child.
Was the right thing to do, to make her pay for it?
Because you're unfamiliar with the distinction. Not only has he actually paid to have his own unborn child killed, he's advocated taking people's guns without due process, changing libel laws to stop reporting that he finds troublesome, and attacks the right of free assembly with force.
His policy position on abortion is the dogma that the embryo and fetus are persons, which means fully as much as it does that children are persons, and that Blacks are persons. Persons possess rights. Biden's policy position on abortion is that it's up to the mother to decide if her embryo and fetus is a person. Are you familiar with that distinction?
It's the distinction between an Antebellum political abolitionist in the South who honestly campaigns as an abolitionist, but, in the meantime, while slavery is still legally protected, keeps his own slaves. Not a hero by any means, and absolutely a hypocrite, and maybe a coward, but if legislation abolishing slavery comes across his desk, he will sign it into law.
But compare that now to his opponent candidate B who, while owning no slaves himself, fully defends the right of other slavers to own and deal in slaves. "It's the slaver's choice" he says. "Nobody is forcing anybody to keep slaves" he says, to defend against accusations that his policy is oppressive. "Pro-choice."
Candidate A is Trump and candidate B is Biden.
Everyone knows he has. Why bother denying it?
"French style?"
Yeah
The French revolutionaries, inspired by us, came up with a declaration of rights that included a number of positive rights rather than just the predominantly negative rights in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights.
So you don't think the right to bear arms, to life and due process, are "positive rights?"
Man, I don't think that positive rights are rights at all, but subsidization policy draped in the language of rights. I think it's the same linguistic error as those French made, and it's as a result a political and legal error too. And it's manipulative to the impressionable. Which is, due to a lack of civics education in our subsidized (largely public) schools, a k a political science, almost everybody.
The only inborn rights are negative rights, a distinction that's only necessary because of the fictional positive "rights" that bleeding hearts have appropriated to support their moralistic subsidization policies.
Negative rights are good, like how testing "negative" for a dangerous disease (like covid, if you're over 70 and have over two comorbidities and low vitamin D levels) is good.
I'd just assume not have to qualify rights with either positive or negative, but those supporting positive rights have made it necessary.
